Talk:Siemens

bit about the nazis

im taking out the bit that says "the siemens logo can still be seen above the gas chambers in buchenwald" since it is actually a common misconception that buchenwald had gas chambers, it had an execution chamber where they were suffocated, not gassed

Redirect to company or dab page?

We should talk about changing this redirect before doing so. . . I think it makes sense to point to the company, I believe most people will be looking for it (or one of its products). Why should we change that? (John User:Jwy talk) 00:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's why I would like to change it:

1. In my case, I wasn't looking for the company at all. I had clicked on a link in a molecular biology article that used the unit as a measure of conductivity, and found myself looking an article about the company. It took some poking around to find what I was looking for.

2. I think that since the redirect is likely to affect other articles, and since it may be difficult to ascertain which articles will be affected, redirecting to the disambiguation page is safest.

3. Redirecting to Siemens AG needlessly promotes the company by redirecting users who may be looking for something else.

4. Do we have any evidence that most people on Wikipedia will be looking for Siemens AG? I would think that people looking for the company would google the company website.

5. Redirecting to (disambiguation) doesn't hurt anything: the link to Siemens AG is prominently featured on the disambiguation page.

Webbbbbbber (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The link in the molecular biology article should be fixed (and any other link intending to link to other-than-the-company) to direct to the article directly. This would be the case no matter what we do this redirect. You should never have gotten here. Articles should (almost) never link to a disambiguation page. I'll start cleaning that up. If most people are looking for the company, directing it to the company is the best thing to do. It has nothing to do with promoting it over anything else. And if we change the redirect, the "prominent position" of Siemens AG on the disambiguation page will change. Have a look at WP:MOSDAB for some of the more detailed thinking here.

Item 4 is where I think some discussion could take place. I tend to think most people, when entering Siemens in the search box, will be looking for the company. Not that its conclusive, but the first two pages of a google search are all for the company. Which of the other articles do you think will be nearly as popular? (John User:Jwy talk) 04:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and consideration!

I wasn't aware that articles shouldn't link to the disambiguation page, but that makes sense.

As far as popularity goes, the only links I can see as being reasonably popular are: Siemens AG, Siemens (unit), and Siemens (train). All the others are names of people, and I think WP users seeking those people are likely to use first and last name in their search.

It sounds like you are fairly familiar with WP style, which I am still learning. Is it fairly common for [Topic] to link to [Topic (disambiguation)], or is that generally frowned upon?. Is it acceptable practice to redirect to a disambiguation page for 24-72 hours and look at the traffic to determine article popularity? It would be really easy to see which Siemens people are after by (temporarily) redirecting to the disambiguation page, then checking the traffic of each main article. Or are experiments along these lines verboten? Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for "listening." I actually haven't used any of the statistics actually, so I don't know what works. And I'm not sure 24-72 hours is long enough - don't know how often anyone is looking for these guys. I have never seen anyone experiment like that. I'm actually pretty certain most people will be looking for the company - they have quite a "presence" on American TV, at least, and the name is spewed across many a footballer's jersey in Europe. The train is made by the same company. And the unit is pretty specialized. I would love to see statistics, but I don't need them here.

My criteria there (which I just came up with myself and some are pushing back on a little) is that if any one article is the desired article more than ALL the rest, then it should be the primary target. I truly think that is the case here.

Thing to Thing (disambiguation) is quite normal when there is no primary article agreed upon. You want people entering "Thing" to get to the dab page and it is arguably clearer to have the page name actually include the (disambiguation). If you want that, the only way to do it is to redirect as you say! But it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Sometimes - because of the way the history went, the redirect goes the other way and that works okay, too. Both work getting the user to their desired information quickly, which is the main goal of dab pages. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most people might be interested in Siemens AG, but, Simens (unit) is a preferred SI unit of conductance, and as such it might be referred to in more wikipedia pages than the company. There is no reason folks who are trying to figure out what 2.8 siemens per cm² means have to click twice, whereas the people who are interested in the company get to their destination automatically. Since wikipedia is expanding rapidly, and as more and more data is pulished, at some point (if not already) the number of references to siemens (unit) will outweigh those to the company, whose representation in wikipedia seems to be more or less stable at this time. I vote to redirect this page to Simens (disambiguation)]]. Otherwise, I am sure, this will be coming up again and again in the future. Xenonice (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to talk about Nazi ties?

Yes, a lot of companies did business with the Nazis, and yes, a lot of individuals worked for the Nazis. Now, just as we don't punish posterities of those who worked with the Nazis, did business with Nazis or were Nazis themselves, shouldn't we just learn to move on and stop adding hate-material about who did business with whom? I would say a large number of companies (and people) that existed in Germany in those times benefited from the Nazis, directly or indirectly. And the nation has paid the price for it. What happened then was sad, tragic, inhuman, but we have to draw the line somewhere while discussing history's relevance to the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineworthies (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To ignore and cover up history because it's unpleasant would be a mistake. Siemens contributed to the extermination of millions. To ignore this fact and leave the Nazi ties out of the article would be anti-Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlambe3 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Declaring an interest as a siemens employee and not editing, I think that in a historic artical about siemens it would be amiss not to mention its wartime history. Siemens growth as a company and post war strength were as a direct result of war time contracts, including the use of slave labour. Sure, the same goes for a lot of german companies, but it would be like not mentioning the licensing of DOS in a microsoft article - it was a major engine behind initial growth. I agree that putting a sentence like "like a lot of german companies at the time" might give context, as the story of any german company growing from that era is similar. 80.7.72.146 (talk)

Siemens helped to build the concentration camps and used slave labour. That goes beyond co-operating with the national government to active collusion in crimes against humanity. This company's grim criminal past should not be wiped away because it happened a long time ago and a lot of people were doing it.--Korona (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See this image recently donated by the German government from 1943:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.237.76 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

- Personally I want to learn more about Siemens involvement with the Nazis. This isn't supposed to simply be a venue of proper and acceptable content. I want to know about the Nazi involvement of all the peoples and companies involved. The brief mention as it is currently is far too insufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agather (talk • contribs) 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Secret Meeting of 20 February 1933 may be of interest to you as a start.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

So is Aeneon, Infineon and Qimonda brandnames of Siemens AG? divisions of Siemens? or are they now spun off companies, by spun off I mean they Siemens conglomerate no longer have any control. Like XGI which spun off from SiS. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bribery Overhaul

[1] [2]

These are two websites that both have the same article published from the New York Times newspaper, and both have the Frontline interview of Reinhard Siekaczek, an employee from Siemens who oversaw the international pay offs to foreign officials to secure business contracts from competeing companies.

I was astounded to find just a measley paragraph on this, as Siemens has been fined $2.6 billion, the most for a company on international bribery. Although, compared to the 2008 global revenue of Siemens, $110.82 billion, this is a mere bargain!

So, I want to adress the need for an overhaul on this section; implementing facts from the two links posted above as references. Please help me do this, and please give me your take on what should be done.--LCoolo 04:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is Charlotte?

End of 'Post WW2' section talks of bringing jobs to Charlotte. Is anyone able to add something to clarify this? Why did they bring all these jobs to some unknown woman? To be serious, I discovered that Charlotte is a town is the US & assume this is what the writer meant but is there a Charlotte anywhere else it could be. Also, what doing. If this cannot be firmed up I feel that this paragraph should be deleted as it says so little in the overall doings of a business as massive as siemens. kimdino (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

monetary units and anonymous IPs

I said it before, no English-speaking country uses Euros, so pounds or dollars are appropriate. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Official annual report has been made in euros, so there's no point to convert the currency in other currencies. All financial info should be in the official form and currency, not in any converted currencies.

That argument about no English-speaking country has no point at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.59.237 (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am right but would it not make more sense to put 77.327 billion € as the revenue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.23.176 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats odd, I thought Ireland was an english speaking country... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.17 (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute the silliest thing I have ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.3.14 (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup!

First half seems ok then just a lot of lists - with no context or references - eg acquisistions and mergers starts in 2000, list of clients gives no context, list of products - somewhere else maybe? (categories?), list of competitors no context.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal

Support of Iran’s nuke program

In 2009, German customs officials intercepted a Siemens shipment of compressors on it's way to Iran. The compressors sent by Siemens were meant to be used as part of Iran's nuclear program. Siemens officials declined to directly address the report. ref>[3]</ref>

If someone wants to have a go at writing this in a neutral fashion please feel free. It would also help if the link was to the original source, not a source that would tend to show bias.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the link [4]Shortfatlad (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The only statement of fact in the sources is that a Siemens shipment to Iran was intercepted and that it possibly violated export restrictions. In no way can in be concluded from these sources that Siemens supports the Iran nuclear program.--Atlan (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Potentially the info may be relevant to Sanctions against Iran, however I would prefer to wait and see if this actually becomes a major scandal (such as those already covered in the article) or a "storm in a teacup".Shortfatlad (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)